Search

When is the expression of prejudice seen as authentic? Perceived authenticity refers to how much one judges another's behavior to reflect the beliefs, attitudes, goals, and desires of that person. We investigate whether perceived authenticity can operate as a vicarious justification for prejudice—a way for prejudiced people to defend the prejudiced statements of others. In six studies, prejudice was positively related to perceived authenticity of similarly prejudiced statements: People are more likely to label prejudiced statements they agree with as authentic. We develop a vicarious justification account of "authentic prejudice." People need not justify what is socially acceptable; if authenticity serves as a justification for prejudice, it will be reported only when the prejudice is nonnormative. Three studies demonstrate that the positive relationship between prejudice and perceived authenticity is heightened when the expressed prejudice is seen as unacceptable. People call "authentic" what they agree with but feel they cannot express. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intergroup emotions motivate behavior, yet little is known about how people perceive these emotional experiences in others. In three experiments (Ns = 109, 179, 246), we show that U.S. citizens believe collective guilt is an illegitimate emotional motivator for ingroup political behavior, while collective pride is legitimate. This differential legitimacy is due to the perception that collective guilt violates the norm of group interest, while collective pride adheres to it; those who believe ingroup interests are more important than outgroups' exhibited this illegitimacy gap. The perception that the intergroup emotion promoted ingroup entitativity mediated the relationship between emotion (pride vs. guilt) and legitimacy; this relationship was especially strong for those high in the belief in the norm of group interest. Collective guilt can have prosocial consequences, yet the perception that it is illegitimate may hinder such consequences from being realized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Do claims of "free speech" provide cover for prejudice? We investigate whether this defense of racist or hate speech serves as a justification for prejudice. In a series of 8 studies (N = 1,624), we found that explicit racial prejudice is a reliable predictor of the "free speech defense" of racist expression. Participants endorsed free speech values for singing racists songs or posting racist comments on social media; people high in prejudice endorsed free speech more than people low in prejudice (meta-analytic r = .43). This endorsement was not principled-high levels of prejudice did not predict endorsement of free speech values when identical speech was directed at coworkers or the police. Participants low in explicit racial prejudice actively avoided endorsing free speech values in racialized conditions compared to nonracial conditions, but participants high in racial prejudice increased their endorsement of free speech values in racialized conditions. Three experiments failed to find evidence that defense of racist speech by the highly prejudiced was based in self-relevant or self-protective motives. Two experiments found evidence that the free speech argument protected participants' own freedom to express their attitudes; the defense of other's racist speech seems motivated more by threats to autonomy than threats to self-regard. These studies serve as an elaboration of the Justification-Suppression Model (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003) of prejudice expression. The justification of racist speech by endorsing fundamental political values can serve to buffer racial and hate speech from normative disapproval. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Researchers have identified several family-based treatments that hold considerable promise in reducing serious juvenile offending; however, these treatments remain underutilized by youth service systems. In the present study, we used meta-analysis to summarize the findings of research on family-based treatments for serious juvenile offenders. Method: We conducted a multilevel meta-analysis that modeled dependencies between multiple effect sizes from the same study. The meta-analysis synthesized 324 effect sizes from 28 studies that met inclusion criteria. Potential moderators (e.g., characteristics of samples, treatments, methods, and measures) were entered as fixed effects in the meta-analytic model. Results: Across studies, family-based treatments produced modest, yet long-lasting, treatment effects (mean d = 0.25 for antisocial behavior, 0.24 overall) relative to comparison conditions. Furthermore, certain characteristics moderated the magnitude of treatment effects; for example, measures of substance use showed the largest effects and measures of peer relationships showed the smallest effects. Conclusions: Policymakers, administrators, and treatment providers may find it useful to consider the effects of family-based treatments for serious juvenile offenders in their selection of treatments for this population. In addition, investigators who seek to develop and study such treatments may wish to consider the current findings in their future research efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Five studies demonstrate that athletic praise can ironically lead to infrahumanization. College athletes were seen as less agentic than college debaters (Studies 1 and 2). College athletes praised for their bodies were also seen as less agentic than college athletes praised for their minds (Study 3), and this effect was driven by bodily admiration (Study 4). These effects occurred equally for White and Black athletes (Study 1) and did not depend on dualistic beliefs about the mind and body (Study 2), failing to provide support for assumptions in the literature. Participants perceived mind and body descriptions of both athletes and debaters as equally high in praise (Study 5), demonstrating that infrahumanization may be induced even if descriptions of targets are positively valenced. Additionally, decreased perceptions of agency led to decreased support for college athletes' rights (Study 3). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Case 1 best-worst scaling, also known as best-worst scaling or MaxDiff, is a popular method for examining the relative ratings and ranks of a series of items in various disciplines in academia and industry. The method involves a survey respondent indicating the "best" and "worst" from a sample of items across a series of trials. Many methods exist for calculating scores at the individual and aggregate levels. I introduce the bwsTools package, a free and open-source set of tools for the R statistical programming language, to aid researchers and practitioners in the construction and analysis of best-worst scaling designs. This package is designed to work seamlessly with tidy data, does not require design matrices, and employs various published individual- and aggregate-level scoring methods that have yet to be employed in free software. • The bwsTools R package provides tools for designing and analyzing Case 1 best-worst scaling studies. • The R package includes a list of balanced incomplete block designs and a function for generating them. • Functions can analyze data at both the aggregate and individual levels of analysis, for data that come both from balanced and imbalanced designs. • This software provides free and open-source implementations of various analysis methods in the published literature on Case 1 best-worst scaling. • A conceptual introduction and tutorial is presented for each analysis method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This research examined when, and for whom, American collective nostalgia can relieve feelings of collective guilt. In the Pilot Study, path analyses revealed that national glorification is associated with collective nostalgia, and collective nostalgia is associated with lower collective guilt. Our experimental studies test the role of these variables in determining responses to the elevated salience of past ingroup harm doing. Collective nostalgia was associated with lower collective guilt especially after reminders of America's harm doing in Study 1. In Study 2 we predicted and showed that reminders of American harm doing would evoke spontaneous collective nostalgia for participants high in national glorification. The remaining studies tested the hypothesis that collective nostalgia serves to buffer collective guilt. Collective guilt was lower after reminders of past harm doing for participants who engaged in collective nostalgia ( Study 3), and this was especially pronounced for participants high in national glorification ( Study 4). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]